• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

Eleatic Stranger said:
Except what you're failing to remember is that (1) the decline and fall of the Roman Empire is in many ways directly a result of its adoption of Christianity as a state religion,
, and (3) Christianity is in large part responsible for the (a) cessation of scientific (or philosophical) work in the pre-fall Empire, and (b) the loss of massive amounts of the work that had been done up till then.

Interesting contentions. Where is your Doctoral Thesis that defends those ideas?


and (2) they didn't really do that in large part (far more important things were stored by the Muslim governments)



Pointing out that they saved a bunch of books - the vast majority of which were basically hagiographies and the occasional church history - doesn't exactly prove them to be the critical saviors of the western intellectual tradition.

IIRC, the arabic muslem scholars were the ones who *did* save Western( i.e. greco-roman) learning through the Dark Ages.

The Enlightenment depended in part on the translation of those arabic texts back into Latin.


jj: Have you ever taken an MMPI? Did you see the results? And I don't mean this a slur. Your posts are becoming more and more "interesting".
 
CFLarsen said:
Yet, your American rights - where everything starts - are endowed you by your Creator.

Or we are born into Locke's "state of nature" with all rights, privileges and money back guarantees that come with it, if you prefer.
 
jj said:
n history, I'd say the "permanant opposition of churches to progress" would be a better statement. When we look at how religion was perverted by Constantine to support the "divine right of kings", how that idea supported the dark-ages slavery, the opposition to the rise of the middle class, how it's being used now to oppose the middle class, etc, I think it's obvious.

I wouldn't say those things were fundamentally the fault of the religion. Most of the abuses of religion are because of politics; the state (or other political bodies with axes to grind) use religion to further an agenda. Unfortunately, many religious authorities allow this to happen because they're getting something out of it themselves. I'd argue that the worst examples of religious oppression in history were the result of unholy alliances between church and state, each party pursuing power.

The separation of church and state is the best thing to combat this sort of thing.

And it's interesting to note that some religions are, for cultural, historical, and theological reasons, easier to exploit for power than others. Cynic that I am, I'd say that's the real reason Christianity beat out the Mithras cult, Isis worship, and all the Roman god worshipping: it was simply a better tool for the state. (Just you try tightening imperial control via popularizing the worship of Dionysus, I dare you! That religion simply isn't suited for it. Christianity was.)

I liked the cult of the emperors, myself. Romans could be so refreshingly upfront about political power tools.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

Ziggurat said:
I'm not sure what religions you've been hanging around, but where I come from, religious principles that you might associate with "absolute truth" aren't forbiden from being tested, they're simply not testable to begin with (such as the existence of heaven).


Agreed, that's the formal statement in most religions.


That's quite unscientific, but it's also NOT anti-scientific.


It means that science does not read at all on the question, one way or the other. Neither can touch the other in their respective "domains". Unfortunately, that's not what we see happening in the USA at the present.


Perhaps the distinction is lost on you, but it's real. The fact that you not only can't reconcile the two, but can't even see how someone else could, is your own mental shortcoming.


Now that's simply a dishonest misrepresentation about my position.

As long as religion DOES NOT INTEREFERE IN SCIENCE I'm content.

But the problem we see in this country, now, is that religion IS INTERFERING IN SCIENCE and is representing itself as TRVTH, even in places where it can be tested and SHOWN WRONG.

The "religious facts" (Yes, I'm well aware of the irony of that kind of phrasing) are simply pushed forth as immutable, absolute truth, even when they are in conflict with real-world observations.

(Creation science is the best example, there are others.)



Projecting this onto others is going to lead you to make incorrect conclusions (such as the idea that nobody does reconcile the two, when there are clearly people who do), which is rather ironic since you're supposedly advocating adherence to observable reality.

Your insistance on misrepresenting my position appears dishonest and malicious.

I require that you fully and completely admit that I have not taken the position that you have disgustingly laid at my feet.
 
Luke T. said:
You set the ground rules by establishing the threats of terrorists and legislatures relative to each other, and therefore set yourself up with the consequences of the the errors in your logic for having done so.

My stating a fact does not justify your construction of false positions.
 
Luke T. said:
Or we are born into Locke's "state of nature" with all rights, privileges and money back guarantees that come with it, if you prefer.

No, no, no....you cannot choose different arguments, depending on what situation you are in. The Constitution is the founding document of the United States. Nothing above, nothing beside - right?

Are your Constitutional rights endowed you by your Creator? Yes or no?
 
Luke T. said:
Or we are born into Locke's "state of nature" with all rights, privileges and money back guarantees that come with it, if you prefer.

'All rights' including the right to not believe in God, or 'Our Creator'...which short circuits the argument that American government is a religious construct...the founders put in an escape clause.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I wouldn't say those things were fundamentally the fault of the religion. Most of the abuses of religion are because of politics; the state (or other political bodies with axes to grind) use religion to further an agenda. Unfortunately, many religious authorities allow this to happen because they're getting something out of it themselves. I'd argue that the worst examples of religious oppression in history were the result of unholy alliances between church and state, each party pursuing power.

The separation of church and state is the best thing to combat this sort of thing.

And it's interesting to note that some religions are, for cultural, historical, and theological reasons, easier to exploit for power than others. Cynic that I am, I'd say that's the real reason Christianity beat out the Mithras cult, Isis worship, and all the Roman god worshipping: it was simply a better tool for the state. (Just you try tightening imperial control via popularizing the worship of Dionysus, I dare you! That religion simply isn't suited for it. Christianity was.)

I liked the cult of the emperors, myself. Romans could be so refreshingly upfront about political power tools.

Actually, in great part I agree here. Well, more or less completely, really, as far as you go.

This is, of course (as you said) why the separation of church and state, something that is presently being publically attacked by expressed republican party positions, is so threatening.
 
Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

jj said:
Science corrects its mistakes. Religion does not.

You mean to tell me that the Catholic Church still believes in an earth-centric solar system and has not corrected that mistaken belief?

You mean to tell me that the Catholic Church still stones adulterers to death and has not corrected that? I could have sworn the Pope is very much against the death penalty.

Really? Payne was religions of the "strictest kind"? Do tell.

Payne was our only founder? Or am I right that there was a nice blend of religiosity and enlightenment among ALL our founders?

The enlightenment was what SEPARATED the religious principles from the government, Luke. Argue all you want, that's the facts.

I sure would love to see you prove those "facts", jj.

Perhaps you meant the enlightenment was what separated religion from the government?

It's not necessary for it to be 'vs.' but that's what's happening at present.

What is your "hit" rate, jj, on this theory? Is it up there with John Edward's psychic hit rate in the high 90s percentile?

It would be good of you to stop lying about my positions, by the way.

I did not realize I was debating shanek. I thought you were jj.

Where did I lie about your position?

Is that a good Christian way to act?

Do you think I am a Christian?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

Luke T. said:
You mean to tell me that the Catholic Church still believes in an earth-centric solar system and has not corrected that mistaken belief?


That's a wonderful example. First the "inerrent truth" was one way, then the other way.

This is, of course, the problem with inerrent truths in general, eh?


You mean to tell me that the Catholic Church still stones adulterers to death and has not corrected that? I could have sworn the Pope is very much against the death penalty.


Um, your point? I've sat in a Catholic Church, during somebody's wedding, and heard a lay speaker rant for 25 minutes about how the subhuman atheists, the tools of satan, were trying to make our society turn communist, how the people who allowed the killing of babies were worse than Nazi germany, etc. I sat through this, mind you, along with my spouse and my kids, listening in amazement at this ranting.

Now, did the priest say anythign to mitigate this rampant hate-mongering? Err, no. Nodded cheerfully in agreement in fact.

I guess what the Pope says only goes so far, eh?

But he's inerrent. Ed said so. Oh, wait a minute, what's wrong here, now?


Payne was our only founder? Or am I right that there was a nice blend of religiosity and enlightenment among ALL our founders?


Oh spare me the exercise of the excluded middle.


Perhaps you meant the enlightenment was what separated religion from the government?


How about you get around to addressing my positions, not the ones you make up, sometime?


What is your "hit" rate, jj, on this theory? Is it up there with John Edward's psychic hit rate in the high 90s percentile?


Ad-hominem. The last resort of the scoundrel.


I did not realize I was debating shanek. I thought you were jj.

Where did I lie about your position?


I should ask you "which time", perhaps.

Note, it's dishonest (that's another lie) to compare me to Shanek here, I'm not saying anything about "shown" or any of that nonsense, I'm simply pointing out that you're making up a position for me out of whole cloth, and then accusing me of holding it.

Big difference. You don't have to agree, but you don't get to make up my position for me.


Do you think I am a Christian?

I have no idea. You have said that you are some kind of deist. I don't really think it's my business what you are, UNLESS (as you have) you've gotten in my face with a whole spiteload of nonsense.
 
crimresearch said:
'All rights' including the right to not believe in God, or 'Our Creator'...which short circuits the argument that American government is a religious construct...the founders put in an escape clause.

No, no, no....you cannot cherry pick the parts of the Constitution you like. You have to accept the whole package.

Oh, you have some evidence you need to show. Just thought I'd remind you, in case you "forgot".
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

jzs said:
would you agree that that is wrong and "humans did" is a more accurate explanation for the cause of thise things? Why/why not?

Well, since humans made up science and religion both, in my view, that's obviously true.

Your point, now?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

I'm going to use the jj method of vbb editing. Let's see how it works for you, buddy.

jj said:
That's a wonderful example. First the "inerrent truth" was one way, then the other way.

This is, of course, the problem with inerrent truths in general, eh?

In other words, religion corrects mistakes. By the way, I'm not sure the Catholic Church still believe in the infallibility of the Pope. And your use of the term "inerrant truth" suggests to me you misunderstand it.

Um, your point? I've sat in a Catholic Church, during somebody's wedding, and heard a lay speaker rant for 25 minutes about how the subhuman atheists, the tools of satan, were trying to make our society turn communist, how the people who allowed the killing of babies were worse than Nazi germany, etc. I sat through this, mind you, along with my spouse and my kids, listening in amazement at this ranting.

Now, did the priest say anythign to mitigate this rampant hate-mongering? Err, no. Nodded cheerfully in agreement in fact.

I guess what the Pope says only goes so far, eh?

But he's inerrent. Ed said so. Oh, wait a minute, what's wrong here, now?

In jj's world, anecdotes are all the evidenc required to support a belief system. A lay speaker = religion = evil.

Oh spare me the exercise of the excluded middle.

You're kidding right? That's where most people are, you know. Or should we consider anything that has an extreme element, with all attending anecdotes, be grounds for throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

How about you get around to addressing my positions, not the ones you make up, sometime?

I said I would love to see facts to support your claim. That is "addressing your position."

I should ask you "which time", perhaps.

So I guess this means you can't find any time I lied about your position.

Note, it's dishonest (that's another lie) to compare me to Shanek here, I'm not saying anything about "shown" or any of that nonsense, I'm simply pointing out that you're making up a position for me out of whole cloth, and then accusing me of holding it.

Big difference. You don't have to agree, but you don't get to make up my position for me.

You have been calling me a liar. That is a shanek tactic. I can't help it if you missed the allusion.

I have no idea. You have said that you are some kind of deist. I don't really think it's my business what you are, UNLESS (as you have) you've gotten in my face with a whole spiteload of nonsense. [/B]

You really need to work on controlling your emotions, jj. Wouldn't want people to think skeptics are too emotional to think straight.

edited to add additional comments
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

Luke T. said:

You really need to work on controlling your emotions, jj. Wouldn't want people to think skeptics are too emotional to think straight.

edited to add additional comments

Ok, you can do nothing but cheap shots. I already figured that out.

Can't complain about substance, so you put words in my mouth, make misleading claims, and whine about appearance.

And, it seems, misuse the quoting method I use just for the sake of ridicule and appeal to the masses.

Maybe it's time you were ignored. Sad, but true.

You haven't addressed the OP at all, you know, you've just made things up and objected to them. Would you like to get on topic?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

jj said:
Ok, you can do nothing but cheap shots. I already figured that out.

Can't complain about substance, so you put words in my mouth, make misleading claims, and whine about appearance.

And, it seems, misuse the quoting method I use just for the sake of ridicule and appeal to the masses.

I used your quoting method to show you how much of a pain in the ass it is as must have become crystal clear to you when you hit the quote button on my post and discoverd it contained only my comments outside my own quote box.

Sucks, doesn't it?

(edited to add that I have asked you nicely to use the same methods of conversing everyone else does here regarding vbb codes several times, to no avail. So I figure you must be a Concrete Learner who can only learn by doing.)

My only "misuse" was that I bolded my answers to you so that if you decided to endure the tedium of having to cut and paste my comments, as everyone has to do for your posts if they want to answer your comments, you wouldn't have to put the bold vbb codes of my comments in your post the way you like to do. I was actually saving you a little time and not giving you the full measure of how much of a pain in the ass your way is.

Maybe it's time you were ignored. Sad, but true.

I'm crushed.

You haven't addressed the OP at all, you know, you've just made things up and objected to them. Would you like to get on topic?

I addressed the OP in full in my very first post. If you could lower your emotions a moment, you will find that other posters have stated similar thoughts as my first post in this topic. So either we all misunderstood you the same, or you are letting your emotions blind you.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

Luke T. said:
I addressed the OP in full in my very first post. If you could lower your emotions a moment, you will find that other posters have stated similar thoughts as my first post in this topic. So either we all misunderstood you the same,


Well, I don't think it's misunderstanding, it's defensiveness.


or you are letting your emotions blind you.

Ad-hom.

(click)
 
CFLarsen said:
No, no, no....you cannot choose different arguments, depending on what situation you are in. The Constitution is the founding document of the United States. Nothing above, nothing beside - right?

Are your Constitutional rights endowed you by your Creator? Yes or no?

No. The preamble to the Constitution could be interpreted to suggest that the founding fathers felt that the rights granted in the constitution were the best ways to "form a more perfect union, provide for the common defense, support the mutual welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posteriety", but beyond that it never adresses or concerns itself with the origin of the rights granted.

Now the Declaration of Independance mentions "unalienable rights granted by our creator", but that document is not the basis for any of our legal rights.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

jzs said:
So then when jj says:

"The Enlightenment gave us the Scientific Method, and the USA as it stands, successful because of science and the scientific method."

and

"Religious 'Principles' gave us the persecution of Gallelio, the Inquisition, and the dark ages."

would you agree that that is wrong and "humans did" is a more accurate explanation for the cause of thise things? Why/why not?

I don't intend to enter into any form of debate with you regarding my answer, it completely answered your question (as far as I am concerned).
 
Interesting contentions. Where is your Doctoral Thesis that defends those ideas?

It ain't mine, but this does the job nicely.

And this:
IIRC, the arabic muslem scholars were the ones who *did* save Western( i.e. greco-roman) learning through the Dark Ages.

The Enlightenment depended in part on the translation of those arabic texts back into Latin.
is a terrible misreading of what I wrote - the Islamic tradition saved the western texts, whereas the christian tradition mostly saved the hagiographies and church histories. The renaissance occurred when the texts saved by the muslim scholars were reintroduced into western society eventually resulting in the Enlightenment.
 
There sure is a lot of things to read relating to the subject of the first post.

Controversies regarding separation in the United States
Some,especially certain devout Christians , believe that the United States Supreme Court has made a logical mistake in using the Establishment Clause to separate church and state by force of law.

The Founding Fathers did not prohibit religious references in official contexts. The Declaration of Independence, the founding document of the United States, contains four references to God . While the Declaration is a rebuke to the notion of a Divine Right of Kings , and while it can be argued that references to God were unavoidable because it is responding to a religious concept, its particular wording seemingly goes further than the minimum required for this, expressing implicit faith in God and reliance on God for the founding of the United States.

The Declaration, however, is not a legal document; the Constitution—which is the legal framework of the United States—does not refer to God (other than referring to its passage by the Constitutional Convention as occurring in the "Year of our Lord 1787"). In fact, prior to the addition of the First Amendment or the balance of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, it contained a clause forbidding any "religious test" for government employees. This has been called the "no religious test" clause , and is found at the end of Article VI, Section 3 (the final clause of the original Constitution save only for the Ratification Clause stating under what conditions the new Constitution would be deemed to be valid and in effect), which reads in part "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualfication to any office or trust under the United States." This clause has been interpreted to cover both elected officials and appointed ones, career civil servants as well as political appointees.

Religious beliefs or the lack of them have therefore not been permissible tests or qualifications with regard to federal employees since the ratification of the Constitution. Many state constitutions have lacked such protection; some have had opposite provisions, requiring state employees and officials follow such specific doctrines as the acceptance of the Christian verison of the afterlife. ( Tennessee constitution Article IX, Section 2 is one such example.) At one time, such restrictions were allowed under the doctrine of states' rights ; today they are deemed to be in violation of the federal First Amendment as now authoritatively interpreted and hence unconstituional and unenforceable.

While sometimes questioned as possible violations of separation, the appointment of official chaplains for government functions, voluntary prayer meetings at the Department of Justice outside of duty hours, voluntary prayer at meals in U.S. armed forces, inclusion of the (optional) phrase "so help me God" in the oaths for many elected offices, FBI agents, etc., have been held not to violate the First Amendment, since they fall within the realm of free exercise of religion.

Relaxed zoning rules and special parking privileges for churches, the tax-free status of church property, the fact that Christmas is a federal holiday, etc., have also been questioned, but have been considered examples of the governmental prerogative in deciding practical and beneficial arrangements for the society. The annual holiday of Thanksgiving, and the national motto "In God We Trust", are clearly violations if strict separation is implied; but they are not inconsistent with the religiosity expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Once again, however, although the Declaration carries no legal weight, these phrases and actions have been allowed as part of a civil religion, which some interpret to mean that they occur in a context which allows the observer to give them whatever meaning he or she wishes to ascribe to them, or to ascribe to them no meaning whatever.

Most of the relevant decisions (school prayer, pledge, etc.) have been based on the use of coercion by the State to promote religious dogma. Many decisions note that even if the State has no intention to promote one particular religion, in practice the predominant religious make-up of a school's population often makes those of a minority religion feel unwelcome or hated. This means that just because an act with religious connotations is deemed "voluntary" it is not specifically exempted from this doctrine; this is especially true with regard to public schools where the students are by definition young and immature and the expression of dissent can subject a child to ridicule, abuse, and negative peer pressure. Regarding the display of religious symbols on public property during holiday seasons, one exception has been cases in which competing religions and non-religion have equal opportunity, although the non-religious displays are often not guarded from vandalism, etc.

The operation of the American "separation of church and state" highlights the difficulty of enforcing laws in a society that encourages the open expression of conflicting religious beliefs. The issue of prayer in the schools will provide a convenient comparison of the points of view in the American public debate over the separation of church and state.

Generally, a majority of voters in America favors prayer in schools, depending upon how the poll is phrased. But the Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause as giving minority religions protection against having the majority religion forced on them by the state.
..and there's some more good reading here
 

Back
Top Bottom